> Actually, Paul clarifies this himself in the remainder of chapers 1 and 2.> But specifically, he means to say that it wasn't human beings who> commissioned him (OUK AP' ANQRWPWN) nor was it a human intermediary of> (divine) authority (OUDE DI' ANQRWPOU). Rather it was Jesus Christ himself> and God the father who raised him from the dead.

But why did Paul use AP' ANQRWPWN as well as DI' ANQRWPOU, when one would have
probably been enough? Perhaps Carl is right to understand the former in terms of
origin and the latter in terms of mediation. Or, as Dan Wallace would say,
ultimate and intermediate agency. But I have noted that the initial negation is
counter-balanced only by one positive DIA phrase in reference to Jesus Christ
and God the Father. Is this because Paul regarded AP' ANQRWPWN and DI' ANQRWPOU
roughly synonymous? Is it because his second DIA covered by implication both the
idea of origin and mediatian? Did he deliberately place the four prepositions
chiastically -- i.e., APO, DIA, DIA, EK -- and thus managed to round off a
slightly imbalanced sentence? Or (and this is quite likely) am I splitting hair?
<g>